hoopmanx wrote:He shouldnt be fired or anything, but he needs to be made accountable moving forward. No more blaming injuries b/c HIS next man up isn't close to good enough. Get better back-ups. No more sanction cry-babying, cause teams play 7 or 8 and only go 10 deep on rare occasion. If 6-10 didnt stink right now, not having 13 wouldn't be the issue he wants to make it out to be.

Since we are not a P5 program, you are not going to have the level of quality in the 8 to 11 positions you see other places - they are going to go somewhere else where they are the 4 to 7 positions.

That's just not the case. Kids transfer at an alarming rate for every conceivable reason. We should have high major or system based evals, at every available scholarship we have. That is the baseline expectation of SMU's basketball coach. The program knows what it takes, has done it, and excuses for not maintaining are excuses. Nobody is blaming staff or Jank for injury. Our roster is pretty good moving forward, and punchers chance Shake stays. That said, admit your faults, stop blaming the God's, address needs. Most of all, coach the Hickory team up. Don't sit in zones that are wholly ineffective, all while letting them have every look they want, b/c man may do the same and we could get in foul trouble. That's reactive pansy ball. Mix it up better. Get the ball in the lane. If Landrum isnt good attacking, what good is he? Get stuff going to the basket and stop chucking 3s. Its not that we're injured or losing. its that we've abandoned LBs pillars. Hopefully thats addressed this offseason

Its not really pansy ball to play zone for most of the game when you got two guys named Pyle and Wilfong sitting alone on the bench although I admit there was a period in the 2nd half where we probably could have played some zone when our foul situation improved--but a man-to-man is a lot more running and a lot more chasing too. 10 guys are going to outrun 5 guys

"With a quarter of a tank of gas, we can get everything we need right here in DFW." -SMU Head Coach Chad Morris

This thread should die solely because 2/3 of the way through someone's second season at the helm is not the time to legitimately talk about firing them, especially after going to the tourney last season. You only fire someone that quickly if there is blatant misconduct or some other internal disfunction that most of us would not be privy to anyways.

Actually this thread accomplished exactly what I wanted -- a closer look at Jank and his recruiting and what changes need to occur during the offseason and next year.But a reasonable title and initial post would've been glossed over.

This is actually a pretty good discussion. What needs to be addressed needs to be addressed by Jank. He is the HC and will be for awhile regardless of what we sages of the hardwood think.

On the court: I’ve been dissatisfied quite often with offensive ball movement. It has stunk quite often in conference play and at TCU. We have virtually no inside game hence little to no inside out game. Basically we drive, kick and huck threes. Some nights it works. Some nights it’s a disaster. Hope is not a plan.

Our defense has been poor without Jarrey. After him Whitt has been sneaky good at times and decent most of the time. Shake plays good D. Nobody else really lights it up. Douglas has the potential to be very good defensively.

So it’s up to Jank and his staff to Coach next season’s team up. They either can or they can’t. We’ll know for sure by NEXT Valentine’s Day.

Then there is recruiting. It could always be better. It needs to be better. Let’s get past probation before we pass judgement.

Adios for now. Enjoy tonight’s game. I’ll be heading out to a Mexico City Dive Bar appropriately named: The F**k Off Room. Hope I can stay off the injury report.

Last edited by sadderbudweiser on Wed Feb 14, 2018 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Stallion wrote:Its not really pansy ball to play zone for most of the game when you got two guys named Pyle and Wilfong sitting alone on the bench although I admit there was a period in the 2nd half where we probably could have played some zone when our foul situation improved--but a man-to-man is a lot more running and a lot more chasing too. 10 guys are going to outrun 5 guys

When a lead increase from 8 at half to 25 in like 4 minuites, you go away from zone. When the opposition is running shell drills on you, you change your D. Good thing our guys weren't gassed while executing like turds and blowing any chance they had of being competitive.

Stallion wrote:Its not really pansy ball to play zone for most of the game when you got two guys named Pyle and Wilfong sitting alone on the bench although I admit there was a period in the 2nd half where we probably could have played some zone when our foul situation improved--but a man-to-man is a lot more running and a lot more chasing too. 10 guys are going to outrun 5 guys

When a lead increase from 8 at half to 25 in like 4 minuites, you go away from zone. When the opposition is running shell drills on you, you change your D. Good thing our guys weren't gassed while executing like turds and blowing any chance they had of being competitive.

Seconded. It is okay to play zone, but you have to adjust when the other team has figured out your rotation and can get exactly what they want every time. Not asking for 40 mins man like in the past with the numbers we have, but 10-15mins man and 10 mins 1-3-1 and 15-20 2-3 isn't unreasonable.

Stallion wrote:Its not really pansy ball to play zone for most of the game when you got two guys named Pyle and Wilfong sitting alone on the bench although I admit there was a period in the 2nd half where we probably could have played some zone when our foul situation improved--but a man-to-man is a lot more running and a lot more chasing too. 10 guys are going to outrun 5 guys

When a lead increase from 8 at half to 25 in like 4 minuites, you go away from zone. When the opposition is running shell drills on you, you change your D. Good thing our guys weren't gassed while executing like turds and blowing any chance they had of being competitive.

"Man, good thing we didn't have any guys get into foul trouble as we let them score on 14 consecutive possessions running the 2-3 zone. We could have really been in trouble running man-to-man without numbers."

Enjoyed listening to Shake when he sat in with the guys broadcasting the UCF game. When asked what he had learned while he has been sitting these past several games out his response was something like "well, I know I don't want to be a coach". Maybe he saw this thread?

skyscraper wrote:Actually this thread accomplished exactly what I wanted -- a closer look at Jank and his recruiting and what changes need to occur during the offseason and next year.But a reasonable title and initial post would've been glossed over.

It’s called being ahead of the curve.

If he can’t recruit he shouldn’t be here.

We need to be ahead of the curve in firing him otherwise we lose all our LB-era gains.